Osario-Salcedo v. Mazarova, 100 A.D.3d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Osario-Salcedo v. Mazarova, 100 A.D.3d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Benitez (nyappdiv, 2016-06-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Benitez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Moreover, he *1141 subsequently denied his guilt during an intake interview with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and thus the court properly concluded that the defendant had not genuinely accepted responsibility as required by the SORA Guidelines (see People v Mosley, 106 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2013]; People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v Perry, 85 AD3d 890 [2011]; People v Vega, 79 AD3d 718, 719 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stapleton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Further, the People presented clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not genuinely accept responsibility for his conduct and minimized his behavior (see People v Dallas, 122 AD3d 698 [2014]; People v Johnson, 118 AD3d 684, 685 [2014]; People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]), thus warranting the assessment of 10 points under risk factor 12 for not accepting responsibility.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dixon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant minimized his conduct and thus did not genuinely accept responsibility for the acts underlying his conviction (see People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v Velez, 100 AD3d 847 [2012]; People v Perry, 85 AD3d 890 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dallas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was clear and convincing evidence that he did not genuinely accept responsibility for his conduct, as required by the Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, and that he minimized his behavior (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15 [2006]; People v Johnson, 118 AD3d 684, 685 [2014]; People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Wilson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant entered an Alford plea, which was not an admission of guilt (see People v Hazen, 47 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2008]; People v Donhauser [appeal No. 1], 37 AD3d 1053, 1053 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 815 [2007]), and he thereafter “minimized the underlying sexual offense and . . . denied that he performed the criminal sexual act which formed the basis for the conviction” during an interview with the Probation Department (People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 859 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Wilson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant entered an Alford plea, which was not an admission of guilt (see People v Hazen, 47 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2008]; People v Donhauser [appeal No. 1], 37 AD3d 1053, 1053 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 815 [2007]), and he thereafter “minimized the underlying sexual offense and . . . denied that he performed the criminal sexual act which formed the basis for the conviction” during an interview with the Probation Department (People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 859 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mosley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Although, two weeks later, the defendant formally admitted his guilt in response to questioning by the Supreme Court at the sentencing proceeding, the defendant’s contradictory statements, considered together, do not reflect a genuine acceptance of responsibility as required by the SORA Risk Assessment Guidelines (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15-16 [2006]; People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v Perry, 85 AD3d 890 [2011]; People v Vega, 79 AD3d 718, 719 [2010]; People v Ferrer, 69 AD3d 513, 515 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mosley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Although, two weeks later, the defendant formally admitted his guilt in response to questioning by the Supreme Court at the sentencing proceeding, the defendant’s contradictory statements, considered together, do not reflect a genuine acceptance of responsibility as required by the SORA Risk Assessment Guidelines (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15-16 [2006]; People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v Perry, 85 AD3d 890 [2011]; People v Vega, 79 AD3d 718, 719 [2010]; People v Ferrer, 69 AD3d 513, 515 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Felipe Osario-Salcedo
v.
Larisa Mazarova, and Nicholas Agostino
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 28, 2012.
100 A.D.3d 976
Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Nicholas Agostino and Orange Transportation Svc., Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated November 17, 2011, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Kearney v Garrett, 92 AD3d 725, 726 [2012]) by submitting evidence establishing that the plaintiffs alleged injuries were not caused by the subject accident (cf. Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether his alleged injuries were caused by the subject accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]; Sforza v Big Guy Leasing Corp., 51 AD3d 659, 661 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.